SLK55 (R171) 2004 - 2010: SLK200K, SLK280, SLK350, SLK55, SLK55 Black Series

new SLK v SL and AMG v non-AMG

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 02-22-2005, 03:39 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
NeilC123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SLK 230
Post new SLK v SL and AMG v non-AMG

HI,

This is my first posting although i have read the other postings with some interest over the last few months. However I thought i would ask you people of your thoughts. I drive approximately 28,000 miles a year for work (including parking in some unattended car parks) and I wondered what car do you lot think is best? I currently drive an old style slk 230 although i have only had it a year but because it has a tracker in it and it isn't that amazingly flashy I dont' mind where i keep it that much, but i wondered:

1. For travelling that sort of mileage is an slk more practical than an sl? Or do people have no problem using an SL as an everyday car? If so what sort of engine is best on either for everyday use for a lot of mileage?
2. Is AMG more of a toy for people to play rather than a practical everyday for work thing?

I have to say I have mixed feelings about the new design of the SLK as when i first glanced at it it looked very similar to a Hyundai (they have a model which has a sort of nose at a bonnet) but it seems that styling is the way that Mercedes are going but what i am also worried about is whether Mercedes' reliability is getting suspect?

When the time comes i.e. 2 years time I hope to therefore sell my present slk and will be looking for a 2 seater roadster and I have to say from reading all the postings I am still very undecided as to which car I really fancy, what engine size and what styling. I would therefore be very interested in people's views.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks :o)
Old 02-22-2005, 09:09 PM
  #2  
Almost a Member!
 
Sirius_Investor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kings Point, NY AKA Great Neck, NY
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2005 SLK55 AMG; 1999 BMW X5
Originally Posted by NeilC123
HI,

This is my first posting although i have read the other postings with some interest over the last few months. However I thought i would ask you people of your thoughts. I drive approximately 28,000 miles a year for work (including parking in some unattended car parks) and I wondered what car do you lot think is best? I currently drive an old style slk 230 although i have only had it a year but because it has a tracker in it and it isn't that amazingly flashy I dont' mind where i keep it that much, but i wondered:

1. For travelling that sort of mileage is an slk more practical than an sl? Or do people have no problem using an SL as an everyday car? If so what sort of engine is best on either for everyday use for a lot of mileage?
2. Is AMG more of a toy for people to play rather than a practical everyday for work thing?

I have to say I have mixed feelings about the new design of the SLK as when i first glanced at it it looked very similar to a Hyundai (they have a model which has a sort of nose at a bonnet) but it seems that styling is the way that Mercedes are going but what i am also worried about is whether Mercedes' reliability is getting suspect?

When the time comes i.e. 2 years time I hope to therefore sell my present slk and will be looking for a 2 seater roadster and I have to say from reading all the postings I am still very undecided as to which car I really fancy, what engine size and what styling. I would therefore be very interested in people's views.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks :o)
If you are worried about flashyness, it wouldn't matter. The SLK55, SL, SLK350 all of them are pretty flash cars themselves. But from a practically stand point I would get the SLK350. On my SLK55 my monthly gas runs me about $750 /a Month. It's not that i'm complaining about the money for the gas, just the fact that I gotta haul my *** over to the gas station for 10 min to fill it up, but once you get going the car is a dream. Acceleration, the pure 5.5L V8 engine sound, fact that you can put the top down in high 20 degree temperatures ( yeah I know im crazy ) because of the airscarf technology. So basically in the SLK55&SL, the gas mileage is a nightmare since they are both gas guzzling V8 Engines. The SLK350 comes with the standard 3.5 V6 which has pretty good mileages compared to the V8s. So basically if you are looking for practically go with the SLK350 aka non-amg.
Old 02-23-2005, 02:52 PM
  #3  
Super Member
 
SLK55_AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: No specific place
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by Sirius_Investor
If you are worried about flashyness, it wouldn't matter. The SLK55, SL, SLK350 all of them are pretty flash cars themselves. But from a practically stand point I would get the SLK350. On my SLK55 my monthly gas runs me about $750 /a Month. It's not that i'm complaining about the money for the gas, just the fact that I gotta haul my *** over to the gas station for 10 min to fill it up, but once you get going the car is a dream. Acceleration, the pure 5.5L V8 engine sound, fact that you can put the top down in high 20 degree temperatures ( yeah I know im crazy ) because of the airscarf technology. So basically in the SLK55&SL, the gas mileage is a nightmare since they are both gas guzzling V8 Engines. The SLK350 comes with the standard 3.5 V6 which has pretty good mileages compared to the V8s. So basically if you are looking for practically go with the SLK350 aka non-amg.

brought it up nicely

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: new SLK v SL and AMG v non-AMG



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.